There's some interesting "features" in older versions of Solaris
dhcpagent, so I wouldn't be surprised if this is a bug or known problem.
Perhaps some googling for solaris dhcpagent subnet mask might get
something?
What setting do ou have for netmasks in /etc/nsswitch.conf? Could it be
picking up a different subnet mask via nis or nisplus?
regards,
-glenn
> The /etc/ files are for the second interface's benefit. I'm only
> configuring the dmfe0 interface with dhcp. The dmfe1 interface is
> generally customized differently by the user. Also, I can't guarantee
> that there is a dhcp server on the second interface. They're on 2
> different subnets.
>> The thing that gets me is that without waking up dhcpagent, the netmask
> and IP pair on the second interface can be completely controlled by the
> netmasks and hostname.dmfe1 files, even if they break rules of
> subnetting. If I do invoke dhcpagent some strange set of rules apply
> that don't adhere to subnet masking at all. For instance, with dhcpagent
> controlling dmfe0, I can set the IP of dmfe1 to 10.1.65.25 in
> hostname.dmfe1 and /16 in /etc/netmasks and that's how the interface
> gets configured. If I try to set the dmfe1 to 10.1.1.1 with 10.1.0.0
> 255.255.0.0 in /etc/netmasks, the interface cones up with a /24 mask.
> AFAIK, 10.1.1.1 is a totally legit address in the 10.1.0.0/16 subnet.
>> Thanks for the comments,
>> John
>> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcp-users-bounces at lists.isc.org> [mailto:dhcp-users-bounces at lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Neff_Glen at emc.com> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 6:16 AM
> To: dhcp-users at lists.isc.org> Subject: RE: Interesting Behavior with Solaris 2.8
>> Many aspects of Solaris' IP stack have been a mystery to me, but why
> would you be touching /etc/netmasks if you're using DHCP to configure
> the interfaces? The subnetmasks should be specified in your dhcpd
> config.
>> Also, are you sure this isn't old lease info cached in /etc/dhcp/dhc.*
> on the solaris host?
>> -G
>>> /*
> * Glen R. J. Neff
> * RTP TSG Lab Team
> * neff_glen at emc.com> *
> * EMC^2 == E^2
> */
>>>> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcp-users-bounces at lists.isc.org on behalf of John Tabasz
> (jtabasz)
> Sent: Thu 8/13/2009 7:48 PM
> To: Users of ISC DHCP
> Subject: Interesting Behavior with Solaris 2.8
>> Hi,
>> I have a Sun V100 running Solaris 2.8. I want dmfe0 to be under the
> control of the dhcpagent on Solaris and dmfe1 to be statically
> controlled.
> Previous to running a DHCP server in this environment I had no problems
> configuring the Sun the way I want them to be.
>> My secondary interface, dmfe1 I want to be configured as 10.1.1.1 with
> the netmask of 255.255.0.0. This is a legitimate combination of values.
> I do the following in order to do this.
> #cat /etc/netmasks
> 192.168.25.0 255.255.255.0
> 10.1.0.0 255.255.0.0
>> #cat /etc/hostname.dmfe1
> 10.1.1.1
>> Before I introduced dhcp to the environment, on booting, the server
> would come up with the following interface configuration for dmfe1:
>> dmfe1: flags=1000843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST,IPv4> mtu 1500 index
> 3
> inet 10.1.1.1 netmask ffff0000 broadcast 10.1.255.255
>> This looks completely legitimate to me. 10.1.1.1 is a legitimate address
> in the subnet 10.1.0.0.
>> However, I introduced dhcpd into the environment and use it to deliver
> address and dns and hostname information for the other interface only.
> On the client I run
> #echo primary > /etc/dhcp.dmfe0 to allow dhcpagent to control the
> interface.
> When the V100 comes up, even though the dhcpagent should have nothing to
> do with the dmfe1 interface, dmfe1 gets configured such with the same
> values in the /etc/netmasks and /etc/hostname.dmfe1 files:
>> dmfe1: flags=1000843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST,IPv4> mtu 1500 index
> 3
> inet 10.1.1.1 netmask ffffff00 broadcast 10.1.1.255
>> So for some reason the control of dmfe1 is bleeding over from dmfe0, and
> it's behaving in a way that looks like it violates subnetmasking rules.
>> Can anyone comment on this? Do I need to upgrade my dhcpagent rev or
> something?
>> Thanks in Advance,
>> John
> _______________________________________________
> dhcp-users mailing list
>dhcp-users at lists.isc.org>https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users>>> _______________________________________________
> dhcp-users mailing list
>dhcp-users at lists.isc.org>https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users>